fuck the machine!

If its my land and I want 1 Million for it...its mine, I paid for it, I paid taxes on it for the last 20 years prolly...and if I want to use it its mine damn it

I am tired of people telling me because it will be good for someone else. I don't give a damn.

3/17/2006 7:49:20 AM

Morrisville is shady as hell when it comes to land...
a friend of mine owns a house there that shares a driveway with another house...
the town wanted to buy both properties, and tried to pressure the woman in the house closer to the road to close off the driveway so they could condemn my friend's land...
of course, turns out that in the divorce settlement that gave the woman the house right-of-way was guarenteed to my friend, but still, it was an asshole thing to try and do...

3/17/2006 8:56:16 AM

Quote :

"fuck the machine! If its my land and I want 1 Million for it...its mine, I paid for it, I paid taxes on it for the last 20 years prolly...and if I want to use it its mine damn it I am tired of people telling me because it will be good for someone else. I don't give a damn."

obviously, you are incapable of seeing the big picture. in a simple, ideal world this would fly. in our world, it doesnt.

Quote :

"Morrisville is shady as hell when it comes to land... a friend of mine owns a house there that shares a driveway with another house... the town wanted to buy both properties, and tried to pressure the woman in the house closer to the road to close off the driveway so they could condemn my friend's land... of course, turns out that in the divorce settlement that gave the woman the house right-of-way was guarenteed to my friend, but still, it was an asshole thing to try and do... "

this makes no sense. the government can condemn your land whenever they want. condemning is the act of taking your land for public use. further, what would prevent your friend from building his own, new driveway. this is really dumb.

fact is and will always be that the government has the right to police, tax and condemn your property. if it is taken, they are required IN EVERY INSTANCE to give you fair market value for that land. if you decide what they are offering is not fair, you have the right to take that offer to court and hope for a higher one....going to court, however, will not stop the seizure.

3/17/2006 10:12:43 AM

maybe the developer should sacrifice a house lot or two for a road or go into the place a different way, but maybe that wouldn't work. you shouldn't have to give up your property so someone else can make use of theirs. the developer should have had enough sense to work out how he was going to get in and out before he made his plans.

3/17/2006 8:49:32 PM

I love the way people are calling the residents greedy.

Did you think about the fuckin developer?

3/17/2006 9:40:47 PM

yea I have to side with the residents with eminent domain issues.

3/17/2006 10:16:58 PM

you can no longer own land in this country, but merely pay rent for its use

3/17/2006 10:46:41 PM

Quote :

"obviously, you are incapable of seeing the big picture. in a simple, ideal world this would fly. in our world, it doesnt. "

The problem with the big picture is not everyone cares or agrees with it. You see, a road for public use I could potentialy see, but taking MY property to give to a PRIVATE development is ridiculous. And don't give me any bullshit about it being for public good and for bringing life into an area, that shit isn't guaranteed and I know far too many developers who will promise you the moon and a blowjob if you give them the land they want.

What happens when the new development doesn't revitalize the community? Now not only is the community the same as it was, but now I'm out some of my land. And what happens when the developer convinces the local government that the reason the property isn't doing well is because my ugly house is there? Should they be able to take my house for the "big picture"? Sorry, private developers should be the same as anyone else, you want my land you pay my price. Otherwise you'll make do without.

3/18/2006 12:33:33 AM

http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/spotlights/spotlight_267_-_kelo_amendment.pdf

3/18/2006 12:45:32 AM

i completely disagree with the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private enterprise.

however, in this case, it seems the owners were acting unreasonably and they shouldve seen that eventually the town would step in because of the benefit to the town the development provides financially.

they have every right to ask for what they think that property is worth, but they also shouldve been smarter about it.

3/18/2006 9:14:59 AM

Why do you feel the land OWNER was acting unreasonably? He basically said I don't want to sell it, unless you want it bad enough to pay way more than it's worth. His land, his choice.

If a compromise is in order, then he should give them a 50 year lease for the land. That way he owns it and they get their right of way.

[Edited on March 18, 2006 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ?]

3/18/2006 2:23:44 PM

+$10,000 for a 13-foot, 300-foot long piece of land is plenty reasonable, and the only reason they were holding out was because they had the developer by the balls. of course the developer has connections with the town, so of course the city got involved.

ill say it again, dumb move on the owners part. you can argue idealistic points of view all day, but the fact is, eminent domain is a real part of life and there isnt any fighting it. therefore, you have to play these things smartly. they didnt.

3/18/2006 3:30:26 PM

That's BS. You act like he had an obligation to sell it. It is perfectly reasonable for him to take the opinion that he doesn't really want to sell it, but everybody has a price.

3/18/2006 10:55:58 PM

it's his land. he should be able to sell it for his price, however high it may be, or not at all. it's not his responsibility to get rid of some of his property to benefit another landowner. the "benefit to the community" argument is a danger to the very foundation of this nation because it in essence proposes to eliminate property rights as long as the government can get more tax revenue.

3/18/2006 11:12:34 PM

you guys are missing my point. you are arguing the idealistic point of view, vs. the realistic point of view, which is what i am arguing.

eminent domain exists in many different forms, good and bad. you have to deal with it. as an owner of land, you must be aware that if you are approached by a developer who has a project that will benefit the government, your land might be subject to eminent domain if you simply refuse to sell. this is a fact of life. these people lost because they did not play the game correctly. they were greedy and stupid.

3/19/2006 4:36:45 PM

No, they are just from a bygone era when owning land meant you owned it until you choose to sell it.

I would say the idealistic point of view is thinking you can fairly weigh public benefit of private development vs. property rights. The realistic view is that it is a slippery slope and that we must nip this in the bud by banning the use of eminent domain to transfer land to a private entity.

3/19/2006 5:32:32 PM

i agree with you. however, the supreme court does not. until they do, people have to play by the set of rules we are given and not demand +10k for a little strip of land.

3/19/2006 5:47:33 PM